N.T. Wright

Status
Not open for further replies.
We're not disputing any of this. Wright has no problem with imputation of guilt or with Christ as second Adam. What he disputes is the imputation of Christ's active obedience, which is why I'm looking to find it in the OT. If Wright is correct in his reading of the OT, then the concept of imputed righteousness (active obedience) is foreign to Paul and a reformation-era interpolation. If, though, the concept is found in the OT, then Wright's interpretation needs to be re-examined.
This is completely backwards.

It's like the heretics who claim that one has to find a fully worked out Trinitarian formulation in the OT in order for the Trinity to be a valid doctrine. Peter makes clear that the OT prophets searched what they wrote for our benefit because certain truths that are now self-evident with the revelation of Christ were hidden in types and shadows in the OT. Paul is the theologian who truly unpacks these things. He's the one who, in Romans 4 and Galatians 3, what might not have been on the surface of things in Genesus but, by Revelation, we see what is true. Wright ignores what Paul plainly says in favor of trying to go into the OT, without the light of the NT, in order to prove that what the NT says about the OT is not true.
 
It's like the heretics who claim that one has to find a fully worked out Trinitarian formulation in the OT in order for the Trinity to be a valid doctrine.

Right, but the ground is prepared, so to speak. Where is the OT typology of imputed righteousness? Every other aspect of soteriology has its OT typological precedent, including penal substitution and imputed sin (none of which Wright denies).

So I would respectfully disagree and say that imputation is indeed a principle I see in this chapter and it's Christ's righteousness imputed to Abraham before he acts. He's "made" righteous, when indeed he is a sinner.

Where is that in the text, though?
 
Right, but the ground is prepared, so to speak. Where is the OT typology of imputed righteousness? Every other aspect of soteriology has its OT typological precedent, including penal substitution and imputed sin (none of which Wright denies).
But you're asking the wrong question. There is no OT "typology" for the Trinity. It is revealed in the NT. Imputed righteousness is clearly revealed in Romans 4. It's not necessarily on the surface in Genesis 12-22 but we can see it in light of what Paul says in Romans 4 and Galatians 3. To demand that something cannot be revealed by Christ unless "the ground is prepared" is not a demand that the Scriptures make for themselves. They are "shadows" for a reason. Some things that happen in the NT are surprising. Why do you suppose Christ was rejected by so many in His day?
 
Why do you suppose Christ was rejected by so many in His day?

Because they were blind to what they ought to have known. Because they knew exactly what he was saying--and hated it.

Wright's case against imputed righteousness is based on an exegesis of the Old Testament which he then uses to interpret Paul. If Wright's exegesis of the OT is correct, then it's the way that Paul reads the OT as well.

Some things that happen in the NT are surprising.

Sure, but they are still revealed in the OT. Things like the humiliation of Christ are typified in the servant songs of Isaiah. The Divinity of Christ in the Son of Man in Daniel. Types and shadows, yes, but crucial to understanding the NT. The principles of salvation are already present in the OT---and imputed righteousness is one of them. Righteousness at Mount Moriah leads to a blessing for Israel. David's righteousness leads to a blessing for Solomon. Again, types and shadows, and of course imperfect. All these, of course, are objects opf grace and their righteousness is marred by sin, lapses, etc. But the typology is still there that David is the reason why the kingdom will be blessed, just as Abraham is the reason that Israel gets to inherit the land. Both, in limited ways, serve as examples of active obedience leading to blessing for others.
 
It's like the heretics who claim that one has to find a fully worked out Trinitarian formulation in the OT in order for the Trinity to be a valid doctrine.

Right, but the ground is prepared, so to speak. Where is the OT typology of imputed righteousness? Every other aspect of soteriology has its OT typological precedent, including penal substitution and imputed sin (none of which Wright denies).

So I would respectfully disagree and say that imputation is indeed a principle I see in this chapter and it's Christ's righteousness imputed to Abraham before he acts. He's "made" righteous, when indeed he is a sinner.

Where is that in the text, though?


What about Genesis 15:6? Is that not imputed righteousness?
 
Philip,
It takes 66 books, and the unfolding of progressive revelation, to arrive at full-blown theology.

What is revealed in Christ's Person is more than simply a list of types fully filled in. Christ is the answer/reversal to the sin spread to all men for Adam's sake; but that's not necessarily a point that can be unpacked until his arrival, and the explanation of the success of his mission.

Paul simply points to Adam and the results of his headship, and declares that one may now have another Head in whose obedience (by contrast) men may have union. It is not necessary to have had one or many previous (OT) trials, resulting in less-than-perfect/impermanent credits for others.

We see solidarity in covenant in the OT. We see covenant renewal, and blessings that the next generation inherits. And in the Davidic kingship, we start to see the more fleshing-out of hope in someone whose personal righteousness will benefit everyone who identifies with him, indeed with a lasting institution. Imputation is a benefit for the living. That is a critical point. Inheritance and imputation are concepts that connect, but they are not the same idea.


Finally, an earlier point of mine was pointing out that without care, taking this route one may end up affirming--instead of denying--the NTW's doctrine. It is not as though the imputation that is proposed on this read of Abraham's obedience definitely accomplishes the work of gaining the land. It only makes it "possible" for the late-comers to give it their best shot. And that is very nearly what the NewPerspectivePaul school claims is continuity between Paul and his NT contemporary 2nd Temple Judaism counterparts.
 
I'm dis-satisfied with the answer I gave before about a lack of a typology for the imputation of active righteousness.

I don't buy into the argument that we have to base our typology of imputed righteousness on the 2nd Temple literature or N.T. Wright's own flawed Biblical theology. I do believe, however, the typology of Mounts Ebal and Gerizim provide a grand typology of the need for the active obedience of another to achieve the blessings promised. I was mowing my lawn when this came to mind. I will simply share the sermon I delivered to present the larger case for those who care to read:

http://1drv.ms/1rS070S

Like Christ's response to the Saducees, where He appealed to Genesis 3 as a defense of the Resurrection, this typology requires some good and necessary consequence reasoning. That is to say, it's not on the surface of things but I believe Paul has the blessings and the cursings in mind when he teaches that those who live by the Law are under a curse. The Law and the Sacrifices were on Ebal and there is a typological sense, fulfilled in the history of Israel, that the obedience of another will be required to inherit the blessings promised on Mount Gerizim.

You may also listen to the sermon here: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=551469463
 
No, but that shouldn't mean the argument is off-limits. I like reading a lot of Thomas Aquinas, but he is a Roman Catholic.

The thread is assessing Wright's interpretation of Pauline justification. The fact he may have contributed to Christian scholarship with respect to the quest for the historical Jesus does not entitle him to any indulgence to spread error and confusion on another area. A person who has won medals defending his country is not entitled to recklessly wave his weapon around a peaceful society.

Breadth of reading is no reason to open the door to latitudinarianism.
 
I've heard of Joseph, Moses and David being types of Christ, but not Abraham, who is the father of those who have faith.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
In looking at the following passages would it be fair to say that there is a shadow of imputed righteousness here:

Jeremiah 23:5-6 (NASB)
5 "Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land.
6 "In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell securely; And this is His name by which He will be called, 'The LORD our righteousness.'

Jeremiah 33:14-16 (NASB)
14 'Behold, days are coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
15 ~'In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth.
16 ~'In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she will be called: the LORD is our righteousness.'

The fact that the people of God can say that "The Lord is OUR righteousness" implies, perhaps in a subtle way, that their righteousness derives from the Lord. It is the Lord's righteousness that is considered also to be the people of the Lord's. Thoughts?
 
Where is that in the text, though?

Romans chapter 4.

I mean the text of Genesis 22, the chapter under discussion.

Paul simply points to Adam and the results of his headship, and declares that one may now have another Head in whose obedience (by contrast) men may have union. It is not necessary to have had one or many previous (OT) trials, resulting in less-than-perfect/impermanent credits for others.

Except that he's picking up on the second Adam motif that is central to Genesis and the OT.

Finally, an earlier point of mine was pointing out that without care, taking this route one may end up affirming--instead of denying--the NTW's doctrine.

Fair enough.
 
Abraham isn't a type of Christ. He's a model of true faith being exercised by a sinful man to all his believing desendants in the OT Church and the NT Church.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top